IX. E. The Post-Tenure Review


  • Altered by Faculty action to change to a six-year review cycle: Approved by Faculty February 2008.

Overview: Continued development as effective teachers and active scholars, and as members who support in their service work the educational mission of the College, is expected of all members of the Faculty. Tenured Faculty undergo a post-tenure review process every six years. This review schedule provides an assessment of and feedback on the Faculty member’s continued growth in teaching, scholarship, and service, and also provides a framework for discussions of long-term career planning. The time frame for the activities involved in post-tenure review is the same as it is for annual reviews.

The department chair reviews materials on teaching, scholarship and service, visits representative classes (over the three year span) and determines a recommendation in each category of evaluation using the categories described in the previous section (Section VIII). The department chair then meets with the Faculty member to discuss the chair’s observations and recommendation, as well as the Faculty member’s plans for future work.

The department chair’s recommendation (including his or her reasons for these assessments) and the appropriate documentation is sent for review to the Dean of the Faculty or the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs for Faculty Personnel, usually late in January. If the Dean of the Faculty agrees with the chair’s recommendations, the chair is informed of this decision at a meeting in mid-February. If the Dean of the Faculty′s review is not in agreement with the department chair’s recommendations, the reasons for variance are discussed during the February meeting. The department chair conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the Faculty member being evaluated.

The Process: The Faculty member being evaluated prepares a portfolio for examination by the department chair. The portfolio will be completed and given to the Chair in early January. This portfolio contains:

  • Student evaluations from classes taught during the previous six-year period. Tenured Faculty are required to have student evaluations conducted in one course each semester, selected in consultation with the department chair to make sure that all types of teaching performed by the Faculty member are represented in the review.
  • Course syllabi and representative exams and assignments for courses taught during the previous six-year period.
  • A brief statement describing additional teaching (DI’s, undergraduate research, honors research, etc.), new course development, major changes to existing courses, and any initiatives taken to improve teaching (workshops attended, etc.).
  • A list of all scholarly presentations, publications or creative activities, along with copies of published materials.
  • A brief statement of the Faculty member’s plans for scholarly/creative activities during the next six-year period.
  • A list of any other forms of professional activity within the Faculty member’s academic discipline (editorial work, officer of a professional society, workshops attended, etc.).
  • A list of all events involving service to the College.
  • A list of all forms of service to the wider community, noting especially those activities that seek to integrate Rhodes and/or the Faculty member’s discipline with the external community.

In addition to the portfolio, the department chair reviews final grades given for all courses taught by the Faculty member during the previous six-year period. This information will be provided by the Registrar’s Office.

Tenured members of the Faculty are normally expected to perform at the level of excellent in all three areas of assessment. Exceptions to excellence in an area may occur in view of special circumstances involving shifts in responsibilities as assigned by the College. These circumstances are noted in Section VIII. Absent these exceptions, an assessment of good in any area signals a need for additional attention during the next review cycle.

Faculty members at the College are granted tenure and promotions by the College after comprehensive and rigorous reviews using the standards specified in Section VIII for all three areas of the work of the Faculty – teaching, research and creative activity, and service. A judgment in the post-tenure review that performance is marginal or inadequate in any area is an indication of a serious deviation from the promise confirmed by the granting of tenure.

A Faculty member receiving an assessment of marginal or inadequate must develop, in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty and the department chair, and subject to review and endorsement by the Faculty Governance Committee, a plan for improvement that addresses the areas of deficiency and a timeline for progress to be made in achieving a higher level of assessment by the next review.

The evaluation of marginal or inadequate must be removed within the next review cycle; that is, after another sixyears the original assessment of inadequate must be no lower than marginal, and the original assessment of marginal must be no lower than good. The Dean of the Faculty and the department chair evaluate the work in removing the deficiency. Should performance not result in the improvements in the level of assessment as indicated, the Dean of the Faculty will determine an appropriate response in light of the Faculty member’s overall performance in the three areas of teaching, research and creative activity, and service. The member of the Faculty may request a review of the matter. The Faculty Governance Committee will hear the petition from the member of the Faculty, and the Committee will make a recommendation to the Dean of the Faculty. The Committee’s recommendation becomes part of the official record maintained at the College.

The Faculty member’s six-year evaluation results in a “hold” for the next six years; that is, any merit salary increases for the next six academic years are determined by the post-tenure evaluation results. The assessment of good is the minimum required for across-the-board salary distributions. In the event of an assessment of marginal or inadequate performance in any area resulting from the post-tenure review, the salary of the member of the Faculty will continue without increases until the level of achievement is deemed to be good; that is, the salary will be frozen at the level of salary in the year of the review. So, for example, an evaluation of marginal in teaching, excellent in research and creative activity, and good in service would result in a freeze on all salary increases until such time as the deficiency is addressed by achieving the level of good in teaching. In the event that a Faculty member’s evaluation includes marginal or inadequate assessments in any area, the Faculty member may elect to be evaluated on an annual basis at any time prior to the next review; the results of the evaluation will be factored into the next salary determination.